Blair barefoot horse disqualified for not being shod!

mynutmeg

mynutmeg

Well-Known Member
Joined
5 February 2011
Messages
3,084
Location
Cumbria
Visit site
Came across this on FB

"Potential competition disqualification for un-shod horses.

A barefoot horse owner was disqualified yesterday at Blair Castle International Horse Trials in the Working Hunter Championship for being un-shod.
Naturally she complained about this but got no joy.
She has asked to post the following :

"After qualifying for Blair through the usual qualifying competitions, I travelled to Blair to compete in the Working Hunter Championships. Halfway through the competition, after going clear and through to the Showing round, I was pulled aside by a Steward to inform me that I had to be eliminated for being Barefoot. I’ve competed Barefoot for at least 5 years at Blair, without any problems in some of the most extreme weather conditions. I’ve enjoyed tackling the challenging championship courses that Graham Barclay erects every year. It was an utterly humiliating experience to have to be asked to leave mid-way through a competition because of this new rule (under the newly enforced SHB (GB) rules) that nobody knew about until the day. Has anybody else had the same experience to date? I’d be interested to know. This will affect dressage, showing, showjumping classes under these new rules. Also be warned that horses or ponies that compete with only front shoes will also be eliminated"

Perhaps not only do we need to campaign for the right to trim, but also the right to compete un-shod!"

Really - why on earth would you not be allowed to compete barefoot!
 
Crikey if this is serious mine better all stay at home in future...........
Not that they compete at that level , just as well
Madness
 
MotherOfChickens said:
putting shoes on a successful barefoot horse so it can enter a competition isn't trivial in my book.
Click to expand...

Trivial probably wasnt the best word to describe what i meant - silly or pointless makes more sense. its late and ive been at a show all day so my brain isn't working.
my point is, if a competition is run under certain rules then you either abide by them or you don't and risk being disqualified for it.
It should have been pointed out before the rider started her round and that was unfortunate for her, but rules are rules and they're usually there for a reason.
 
So my lightweight coblet with oodles of talent and feet like steel would be eliminated for not having rubbish feet? She's not barefoot she's unshod.
 
MotherOfChickens said:
oh I see :) my brain is addled too after 7hours of marking. shame she went through the qualifiers and didnt know. it is a stupid rule though ;)
Click to expand...

it is a shame for her - she must be gutted.
I'm sure there's something to be said for the fact that the rule seems to have been overlooked or not enforced previously if no-one knew about it before Blair.
 
I suppose though that the organisers can impose whatever rules they wish, no-one is forced to enter, so no-one is forced to shoe. After all if they insisted that everyone wore a pink tutu you would make the choice to wear it and compete or not and don't.
 
YorksG said:
I suppose though that the organisers can impose whatever rules they wish, no-one is forced to enter, so no-one is forced to shoe. After all if they insisted that everyone wore a pink tutu you would make the choice to wear it and compete or not and don't.
Click to expand...

^This - I think there are lots of stupid aspects to showing. All you can do is petition the relevant society for a rule change, or just don't compete.

I have met a fair few horses who have excellent conformation and a beautiful way of going that wouldn't stand a chance in reasonable level showing because they have a superficial blemish. They are still excellent specimens, with movement and physical ability that is in no way impaired - is that fair?
 
Last edited:
NZLass said:
Hi all. Just to clarify a couple of points bought up;

- There was more than one rider affected.
- The rider I personally know qualified barefoot (i'm guessing the others did to). No mention was made of the rule.
- On the day, riders, nor those in the secretary tent or the BHS (whose class it was), knew about the rule, or knew that it was going to be enforced in some classes. Yes it was the riders responsibility to check, but more could have been done to highlight it beforehand.
- The Champion ridden hunter was barefoot. The rule was not enforced in this class.
- Nobody is blaming Blair organisers for enforcing, however it was not consistent across all hunter classes. This and not highlighting it is the issue.
- The rule was bought about as a safety issue, yet competitors were wearing bowler hats and beaglers despite there being a rule to say hats must have chin straps. Again, consistency is a problem.
- Nobody complained to the secretary other than the riders affected.
- The one rider I know of who went clear has competed successfully at Blair for the last 5 years. Last year she was 2nd and her picture is ironically used in this years programme. A reminder the rule has been around 3 years now.
- It might be also worth noting that she actually hunts barefoot and her horses are incredibly sure footed and safe rides because of it.

This rule is not like a tack or bit rule, which can be adhered to easily. It directly affects the way in which a rider CHOOSES to care for their horse. For my friend, this rule is making it impossible to compete unless she goes against 6 years of hard work to produce successful barefoot competition horses. It's not as easy as, just put shoes on, it ends her competing career as she rightly refuses to do so.

This can't be allowed to happen, it's an incredibly slippery slope and that's why the issue has gone viral on social media.

Please lobby SHBGB to overturn and/or support your local BHS in doing so.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Quoted post above is from the thread in Competition & Training http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forum...6#post12019416

Agree with above post.
 
Well, these competitions will simply not get my money in future!! Totally ridiculous ruling, surely it should be personal preference for how the horse goes best?? How bloody ludicrous.
 
I'm in no way an expert but surely lots of folk show unshod ponies. I once hopped on a pony a lady wanted jumping before she sold him (younger, braver days) and he had been a fab unshod show pony.
 
Apparently it was to ensure that the ride judges weren't risking themselves on a horse that might slip - presumably the person who came up with the rule believed that if a horse was shod then the competitor would put studs in if the ground warranted it. And the reason they didn't make a ruling for studs is because at every competition the organisers would have to make a decision as to whether competitors had to wear studs or not, which complicates the issue a little.

I don't think the rule is a particularly good idea, but I don't think it is any more bizarre or outrageous than many other aspects of showing, but then again I've always taken up the option of not competing in showing. I don't know why others can't do the same (vote with your feet and all that), rather than insisting on making it into some bizarre moral debate.
 
Last edited:
I would have been furious too. It is the inconsistency which is unacceptable IMO.

I am not a barefoot fan but have never shod my Shagya stallion, until last month, because my farrier said he did not need shoeing. However, his last 40km endurance was on stoney ground so he had racing plates put on for the event. In fact one third of the five year old class were disqualified for lameness, so I was pleased we did this.
 
DabDab said:
Apparently it was to ensure that the ride judges weren't risking themselves on a horse that might slip - presumably the person who came up with the rule believed that if a horse was shod then the competitor would put studs in if the ground warranted it. And the reason they didn't make a ruling for studs is because at every competition the organisers would have to make a decision as to whether competitors had to wear studs or not, which complicates the issue a little.
Click to expand...
The thing is what about the possibility of a horse spooking, tripping etc. etc.
Presumably these are acceptable risks for judges so why is slipping different? Horses can slip in shoes.
 
I did also say that I didn't personally think the rule was a good idea. I don't think it is well thought through at all. But there is a difference between saying 'that's a ridiculous rule, what were they thinking' and the reaction that most people have had, which is closer to moral outrage.

Instead of making it into a shod vs unshod issue why don't people just call it what it is - a daft rule that has been applied inconsistently, which the powers that be would be best advised to scrap. As soon as you turn it into a moral debate you start getting people on either side of the divide digging their heels in and no one gets anywhere because you've created a situation where somebody has to admit defeat.
 
How stupid!

I think owners should get to decide if their horse has shoes or not!

Plus I think the bitless issue is rediculas too.
If a horse is under control why has it got to have a bit (or shoes)?!
 
That is so odd, I know showing people hardly move with the times (organisers) but many people who choose barefoot have a real, welfare reason for doing so.
Now I don't see the bitless thing as an issue, the horse can wear a bit for the show and suffer no ill effects, but to make them wear shoes is really odd.
I am not a barefoot advocate in any way, all my horses are shod, but I really don't see that this is fair, or kind or even safer.
 
Ridiculous rule, goes against all the rules regarding horse management, whether it is a show or not, and if the judge is cared of falling off then dont be a judge. Do write a letter to the chair,an and get as many signatures as possible and tell them unless the rule is changed, the shows will be boycotted.
 
Stupid rule, judge more likely to fall off a horse that lacks sufficient schooling. That it hasn't been consistently applied is appalling and show should be answerable for that. I've been in a class with specific rules that weren't enforced which was very frustrating.
 
I agree with this rule. If you know Blair then you know how crappy the ground is even when it is dry. And IMO to expect a horse to perform without studs on it is unfair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top